[OpenID] Wiki page: Attempting to document the "Email Address as OpenId" debate.
gmane at faerber.muc.de
Wed Feb 14 12:21:42 UTC 2007
David Fuelling schrieb:
>> From: general-bounces at openid.net [mailto:general-bounces at openid.net] On
>> Behalf Of Claus Färber
>> I'd prefer to call them user at REALM OpenIDs. The concept of using this
>> format is not only used for email but also for other types of
>> identifiers such as RADIUS zones or Kerberos realms.
>> For example, user at EXAMPLE.COM could be a RADIUS login, a Kerberos
>> principal and a Yadis ID/OpenID but not an email address.
> Hmmm....I'm not sure about this one. I intentionally rooted my definition
> of "Email Address" in RFC2822, which is where it should be rooted (if we're
> going to call them 'email addresses').
I'm repeating myself here:
| I'd prefer to call them user at REALM OpenIDs.
> Seems like anything in the form
> 'user at domain' would also have an identical root (RFC2822).
I don't know where this format comes from. RFC 733 gives a somewhat
vague origin in ARPAnet mail usage.
It's certainly not RFC 2822 (or 822), which is a rather new standard.
It's also unclear whether the usage in other protocols imitated the
email use or whether it was a parallel invention.
> Is that not the case for Kerberos realms and RADIUS zones? In other words,
> are these *not* also email addresses?
| For example, user at EXAMPLE.COM could be a RADIUS login, a Kerberos
| principal and a Yadis ID/OpenID but not an email address.
There's no technical reason an identifier using the user at DOMAIN format
has to be a valid email address.
More information about the general